Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Organisms (living composite objects) do exist.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.There is no non-arbitrary principled boundary distinguishing organisms from other composite objects that would justify differential ontological treatment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mereological composition is either universally permissive or universally restricted, van Inwagen's 'life' criterion smuggles in biological essentialism without metaphysical justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fully deflationary physicalism entails that 'organism' is a folk-biological predicate tracking causal patterns, not a fundamental ontological category picking out genuine entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eliminativist accounts like Unger's and Merricks's show that all macro-level objects, including organisms, are ontologically redundant given the causal completeness of microphysical particles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If organisms exist only because their parts collectively instantiate 'life', then the organism adds no causal work beyond what its simples already accomplish, satisfying no parsimony-respecting criterion for existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Van Inwagen believes that he himself exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen is a composite material object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Inwagen's mereological nihilism has a stopping point that exempts organisms from eliminativism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.